Portvan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two real traits: cost ('Free') and safety ('no side effects'), which effectively communicate the read-only profile. It also discloses the payment-rule content (USDT TRC20, exact amount). It stops short of covering rate limits or whether catalog data can change between calls.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource list is front-loaded and the safety/cost qualifier follows. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-arg tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned content (plans, prices, payment rules) and flags it as free and side-effect free, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It does not describe result shape or ordering, a minor gap given no output schema exists to cover it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Portvan plans, prices and payment rules'), so an agent immediately knows this is the read/catalog entry point. It does not explicitly name the siblings portvan_create_order or portvan_order_status, but the read-only listing framing makes the distinction inferable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives are named. The 'Free, no side effects' note implies it is safe to call at any time, and a catalog is naturally the prerequisite for creating an order, but this routing logic is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that payment is on-chain and irreversible, specifies the network (TRON TRC20), the exact-amount requirement, and a 15-minute expiry window. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, but irreversibility and timing are the critical behaviors for this call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is created and what is returned, then the payment constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description names the return fields (order_id, exact_amount_usdt, pay_to_address) and the payment protocol details. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to create and pay for an order.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; each parameter is already documented and the enum values come from the schema. The description reinforces that plan ids come from portvan_catalog and that domain/cid must be verified before payment, but adds no new per-parameter syntax or format detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create an order for a branded IPFS gateway on your own domain') and immediately names the return payload, distinguishing it from portvan_catalog (plan lookup) and portvan_order_status (tracking). An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear operational precondition ('verify domain and cid before paying, then send exactly exact_amount_usdt USDT on TRON (TRC20) within 15 minutes') and points to portvan_catalog as the source of valid plan ids. It never explicitly states when NOT to use it versus the sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the four possible statuses and the expected polling cadence, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown order_ids, latency, or whether the call is side-effect free.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the polling caveat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return states, and polling behavior. Minor gaps remain around failure modes, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no detail about order_id format or origin beyond what the schema already states ('order_id returned by portvan_create_order'). Baseline 3 applies with a single well-documented parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (order) and enumerates the possible statuses returned, which makes the tool's scope concrete. It is clearly distinct from portvan_create_order and portvan_catalog, though it never names them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives actionable timing guidance: poll every 5-10 seconds after paying, which tells the agent when to invoke it repeatedly. It does not state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the implied workflow (use after create_order/payment) is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.